ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER:    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS:
THOMAS M. ATHERTON    BRIAN POPP    
RONALD M. SOSKIN    LASZLO & POPP, P.C.
ROBERT B. CLEMENS    Merrillville, IN
DAVID A. SUESS    
BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS LLP     JOHN S. DULL
Indianapolis, IN     ATTORNEY AT LAW
    Merrillville, IN

     CHARLES C. MEEKER
    PARKER, POE, ADAMS &
    BERNSTEIN, LLP
    Raleigh, NC

     DOCK McDOWELL, JR.
    THE McDOWELL LAW FIRM
    Merrillville, IN
    
     STEVE CARTER
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
    Indianapolis, IN

     TED J. HOLADAY
    DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Indianapolis, IN
_____________________________________________________________________
    IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT _____________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION                                           )
f/k/a UNITED STATES STEEL, LLC,                                                )
                                                                               )
    Petitioner,                                                                )
                                                                               )
    v.                                                                         )   Cause No. 45T10-0401-TA-2
                                                                               )
LAKE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX                                                       )
ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS                                                    )
and BOOKER BLUMENBERG, JR.,                                                    )
in his official capacity as the Calumet                                        )
Township Assessor,                                                             )    
                                                                               )
           Respondents.                                                        )
______________________________________                                         )

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION    )
f/k/a UNITED STATES STEEL, LLC,        )
            )
    Petitioner,                )
            )
    v.        )
            )
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL         )
GOVERNMENT FINANCE,        )
                )
    Respondent.            )    
_____________________________________________________________________

(Resp’t Calumet Township Assessor Br. Opposing Approval [] of the [] Agreement at 22.) While the PTABOA and the Assessor have extensively briefed their positions, the Court believes the determining issue is whether the Assessor is a necessary, or indispensable, party to the case.
    Under Indiana Trial Rule 19, an indispensable party is one who, if not joined as a party to the action, “complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties[.]” Ind. Trial Rule 19(A)(1). Alternatively, an indispensable party is one who is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may either “impair or impede his ability to protect his interest [relating to the subject of the action], or [] leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reasons of his claimed interest.” T.R. 19(A)(2). See also Black’s Law Dictionary at 1154 (8th ed. 2004) (stating that an indispensable party is “[a] party who, having interests that would inevitably be affected by a court’s judgment, must be included in [a] case. If such party is not included, the case must be dismissed”).
    When US Steel initiated its original tax appeal, it did so pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5. That statute, in relevant part, provides that
[a] person may petition for judicial review of the final determination of the Indiana Board regarding the assessment of [its] tangible property. The action shall be taken to the tax court under IC 4-21.5-5. . . . A township assessor, county assessor, member of a county property tax assessment board of appeals, or county property tax assessment board of appeals that made the original assessment determination under appeal . . . is a party to the [judicial review] to defend the determination.

Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-15-5(b) (West Supp. 2003). Similarly, Indiana Tax Court Rule 4 provides that “[i]n original tax appeals initiated by taxpayers, the named respondent shall be as follows: . . . the local governmental official or entity that made the original assessment valuation, exemption determination, or other determination under the tax laws that was the subject of the proceedings before the Indiana Board of Tax Review.” Ind. Tax Court Rule 4(B)(2)(a). Thus, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5 and Indiana Tax Court Rule 4 necessarily define an indispensable party, under Trial Rule 19(A), in the context of tax appeals such as this one: it is the entity that made the original assessment valuation that was the subject of the Indiana Board’s review.
    In the case at bar, the PTABOA is the indispensable party. Indeed, because the PTABOA completely refigured US Steel’s assessment from the $288,700,000 figure set by the Assessor to $307,000,000, it was the PTABOA’s assessment determination that was the subject of US Steel’s appeal to the Indiana Board. See A.I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(b); Tax.Ct. R. 4(B)(2)(a).
    Nevertheless, US Steel joined the Assessor as a party to the case. “[While m]isjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action[,] . . . [s]ubject to its sound discretion and on motion of any party or of its own initiative, [a] court may order parties dropped or added at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just and will avoid delay.” Ind. Trial Rule 21(A). See also Ind. Tax Court Rule 1 (stating that Indiana’s Rules of Trial Procedure apply to actions in the Tax Court).
    The judicial policy of Indiana strongly favors settlement agreements. Klebes v. Forest Lake Corp., 607 N.E.2d 978, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Settlements allow our courts to operate more efficiently and, equally important, allow the parties to fashion the outcome of their disputes through mutual agreement. Natare Corp. v. Aquatic Renovation Sys., Inc., 987 F.Supp. 695, 700 (S.D. Ind. 1997). Here, US Steel and the PTABOA, the two essential parties to this litigation, have resolved their conflict through mutual agreement. It is improper for the Assessor, the “non-essential” party to the case, to impede and hinder that resolution. See id. at 697 (stating that a settlement agreement is a contract between the parties to the litigation).
    Furthermore, while a township governmental unit has a broad grant of power to conduct its local affairs under Indiana’s Home Rule Act, “[it] may not exercise [its] power . . . if another unit in which all or part of the township is located exercises that same power.” See Ind. Code Ann. § 36-1-3-5(b) (West 2004). See also Ind. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-3-2, -4(b) (West 2004). This suggests that within the administrative realm of assessing Indiana property, there is a hierarchy of assessment officials based on their jurisdictional territories; in other words, township assessors may be “trumped” by county assessors and county assessors may be “trumped” by the Indiana Board. See also Lentz v. Trs. of Indiana Univ., 221 N.E.2d 883, 884 (Ind. 1966) (stating that township and county assessors were, in relation to the Indiana Board’s predecessor, the State Board, “inferior representatives of the state”).
    When the PTABOA became involved in US Steel’s appeal - i.e., its March 9, 2001, final determination revising US Steel’s assessment – the Assessor became the “inferior” governmental official. Indeed, the Assessor’s powers with respect to his assessment duties extend to only those properties within Calumet Township. In contrast, the powers of the Lake County Assessor and PTABOA with respect to their assessment duties extend to a much larger jurisdictional base: all of Lake County’s eleven townships, including Calumet Township. Consequently, while the Assessor can really only be concerned with the terms of the Agreement in relation to how they affect Calumet Township, the Lake County Assessor and PTABOA are concerned with the terms of the Agreement in relation to how they affect the interests of Lake County, which includes Calumet Township. The decision of the PTABOA, therefore, “trumps” that of the Assessor with respect to whether or not the terms of the Agreement are acceptable. See footnote

                                    _____________________
                                    Thomas G. Fisher, Judge
                                    Indiana Tax Court

DISTRIBUTION:

Thomas M. Atherton
Ronald M. Soskin
Robert B. Clemens
David A. Suess
BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS LLP
2700 First Indiana Plaza
135 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Brian P. Popp     
LASZLO & POPP, P.C.
200 East 80th Place, Suite 200
Post Office Box 10794
Merrillville, IN 46410
    
John S. Dull
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8300 Broadway, Suite G-1
Merrillville, IN 46410
DISTRIBUTION – CONTINUED:

Charles C. Meeker
PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP
150 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1400
Post Office Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602

Dock McDowell, Jr.
THE McDOWELL LAW FIRM
7895 Broadway, Suite D
Chapel Plaza
Merrillville, IN 46410

Steve Carter
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
By: Ted J. Holaday
Deputy Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Heather Scheel
Department of Local Government Finance
Indiana Government Center North
100 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Indiana Board of Tax Review
100 N. Senate Avenue
Room N-1058(A)
Indianapolis, IN 46204